Dating IS hard. For ALL genders

[Deleted Member]

@CopperKnob valid examples demonstrated, we could both go on all night. The case in point stands that there are numerous specific inequalities for all genders.

[CopperKnob]

[ge****]

19 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

A specific example as requested from a gentleman in the UK. I thought I was going bald years ago. Later turned out I wasn't and it was actually extreme stress. Anyway I had researched what treatments were available for men then visited my Doctor. Nothing available for men (funding cuts) and it was pretty much doc saying suck it up, lots of men go bald. If I were a women it was however a different circumstance and there was treatment available via the NHS. Men have mental health too, and badness impacts mens mental health too.

In all honesty having read the NHS website about baldness it sounds like that example comes down to bad advice from your specific GP as the website makes it clear there are treatments available to both men and women on the NHS.
.
I'd also suggest it's not an example that applies across the board even if it is true, given that not all men go bald, so is not a disparity that means it's worse for ALL men just some men.

[CopperKnob]

2 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

The comment went but essentially said "thats the point of the blinking post🤷‍♀️"

[Deleted Member]

There are distinct differences between the Scottish NHS to other UK nations. While no one I appreciate anyone is claiming to be a NHS expert, I doubt any of us actually are. We are losing sight of the actual point made now really.

[ey****]

10 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

Didn't realise you were also a NHS services expert too

as someone who is balding and who has considered options - it's something I looked into.  And got the answer that yes it could be done on the NHS but was seen as cosmetic which is not available on the NHS

12 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

And private treatment available for men you say (at a cost), its promoting gender inequality to me.

there are differences between groups for sure - and one fundamental difference here is male pattern baldness is so common that men with it do not look out of place.  

women going bald is usually from a medical perspective than pattern baldness - and - having a cousin who went through this, people are really not kind to women who go through hair loss
 

So you're right - it's not equal : men will never be treat like a freakshow if we suffer hair loss. 

[Deleted Member]

Just now, CopperKnob said:

The comment went but essentially said "thats the point of the blinking post🤷‍♀️"

I was acknowledging and agreeing with you 🙂👍

[ge****]

8 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

There are distinct differences between the Scottish NHS to other UK nations. While no one I appreciate anyone is claiming to be a NHS expert, I doubt any of us actually are. We are losing sight of the actual point made now really.

We are but the point is that there really are no specific areas where men undeniably have it "worse" than women - but plenty of examples where women face struggles and difficulties that men don't.
.
And bringing it back to sites like this and dating sites etc - men certainly don't have it any worse than women, they may have it "different" but not worse.

[se****]

@eyemblacksheep... men will never be treat like a freakshow if we suffer hair loss. I know two women who suffered this. One was my mother. Both were afraid of being stared at as a freak, and constantly wore wigs. I remember when it was so HOT, but my mother endured the heat, so people would not stare at her. Also, to add ... they were very pretty women, but still stared at as freaks! So, there is a double standard!!

[ey****]

21 minutes ago, Mathbro said:

Every analysis of online dating that has been done supports my position

the most recent study was done in 2014 and a lot of the further studies aren't actually studies but repeat the findings from the 2014 study

22 minutes ago, Mathbro said:

Even women are astonished how difficult it is to get matches on Tinder when they make a fake male profile

that in itself is not a study and also lacks any metrics because any matches cannot possibly go anywhere due to the user catfishing

it is however true that women are more likely to at least get matches on tinder - but this is because the average male swipes on about 70% of profiles rather than just those who particularly interest them (anyone who says they're interested in 70% is a liar) whereas women are more likely to only swipe on those who genuinely interest them.

Because men swipe on so many, by averages that woman has a 7 in 10 chance of any swipe she makes being a match.   

Of course - a match is, frankly, fucking meaningless.  Let us say that the woman decides to swipe on 10 guys that she likes, the law of averages suggest 7 have swiped on her so, great, she now has 7 people to potentially talk to but if it ends up that none of these go anywhere cos none of them were *actually* interested in *her* then she still ends up with 0 dates.

70% of nothing is nothing.

And knowing friends who use tinder and get frustrated that they get a lot of matches but they quickly go nowhere - "women get more matches" isn't the hot take it seems.

 

Similarly.  I am aware on someone on Fetlife who posed as a male and acted how she thought men should act and, ahem, ended up with a lot of people sending friend requests or making first contact.  She had to very quickly come clean so again, it's no real metric for if any of this would have actually resulted in a meeting - but it does turn out that women are more interested when men have more to converse about than "what kinks will we do when we meet?" and "I will be your 24/7 Dom/slave" 

[Deleted Member]

8 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

We are but the point is that there really are no specific areas where men undeniably have it "worse" than women - but plenty of examples where women face struggles and difficulties that men don't.

10 billion percent disagree with that. We can presumably just agree to disagree.

[CopperKnob]

Seeing all the comments over the past week from men who feel that they have a rough deal, I think i'll have a go at thinking about things from a guys perspective and maybe come up with solutions. Popcorn should be on everyones shopping list 😂

[ge****]

7 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

10 billion percent disagree with that. We can presumably just agree to disagree.

We can - or you could provide a specific example to back up your assertion that there are such areas where "across the board" men have it worse than women.
.
There have been several given and there are many more besides where women have it worse than men across the board - but I genuinely am struggling to think of any where men have it worse than women, and am happy to be proven wrong.

[ey****]

1 minute ago, CopperKnob said:

Seeing all the comments over the past week from men who feel that they have a rough deal, I think i'll have a go at thinking about things from a guys perspective and maybe come up with solutions. Popcorn should be on everyones shopping list 😂

years ago - I prompted a post on Fetlife where I invited people; any genders to raise what they felt were men's issues

regardless of if this was "who has it worse overall" but genuine male problems.    

Kinda sifting through some that were actual entitlement and then trying to translate it into it how this was a problem men face was a challenge.

It took a while for me to find it, or it's follow up, as it turns out it wasn't the most loved and while people were happy enough to bring everything they felt was an issue they or men faced, there seemed less interest in the follow up.  If I recall - I posted the follow up on here and again the interaction from men on here was poor.

It certainly feels like men prefer to talk about issues or problems when they're trying to talk over women.  A common complaint about this.  We then get into the weird whataboutisms rather than men actually wanting to sit down and talk about stuff

But then maybe that is the problem also.  That there's a lot of communication issues.

And that kinda... from there... it becomes

"Men have problems"

"Such as"

"We can't get a date"

"Ok, here are some suggestions"
"No suggestion. Only date."
"Err, what?"
"I am a lovely super nice guy who could be an amazing sub/Dom/lover/FWB/husband/boyfriend/whatever if someone just give me a chance"

and it gets so black and white as if the problem is simply "no date" and the solution is "give me a date" and it's just.. ughggggghhhhh

 

you know what would solve all my problems?

£10bn.

Therefore I should be able to moan on any and every thread that I don't have £10bn until somebody just, y'know, gives me £10bn.   

 

[Deleted Member]

27 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

the most recent study was done in 2014 and a lot of the further studies aren't actually studies but repeat the findings from the 2014 study

that in itself is not a study and also lacks any metrics because any matches cannot possibly go anywhere due to the user catfishing

it is however true that women are more likely to at least get matches on tinder - but this is because the average male swipes on about 70% of profiles rather than just those who particularly interest them (anyone who says they're interested in 70% is a liar) whereas women are more likely to only swipe on those who genuinely interest them.

Because men swipe on so many, by averages that woman has a 7 in 10 chance of any swipe she makes being a match.   

Of course - a match is, frankly, fucking meaningless.  Let us say that the woman decides to swipe on 10 guys that she likes, the law of averages suggest 7 have swiped on her so, great, she now has 7 people to potentially talk to but if it ends up that none of these go anywhere cos none of them were *actually* interested in *her* then she still ends up with 0 dates.

70% of nothing is nothing.

And knowing friends who use tinder and get frustrated that they get a lot of matches but they quickly go nowhere - "women get more matches" isn't the hot take it seems.

 

Similarly.  I am aware on someone on Fetlife who posed as a male and acted how she thought men should act and, ahem, ended up with a lot of people sending friend requests or making first contact.  She had to very quickly come clean so again, it's no real metric for if any of this would have actually resulted in a meeting - but it does turn out that women are more interested when men have more to converse about than "what kinks will we do when we meet?" and "I will be your 24/7 Dom/slave" 

There have been numerous experiments posted on Youtube and extensive anecdotal accounts beyond the 2014 study. Your position is basically: "women aren't happy with their matches which makes their experience equally bad." I can't agree as you don't factor in reasonableness of expectations. Nobody would take the complaint: "I match with tons of women with female equivalent BMI to me, female equivalent height percentile, etc but I don't get matched with Jennifer Lawarence therefore it's terrible for me" because that's an inherently unrealistic expectation. Ultimately, we can go around in circles here, but I have read and seen enough information to reach the conclusion OLD simply won't work for most men and even those who it does work for end up with matching women who are generally not as attractive as they could get with if they spent their focus on in-person interaction. I still do it because it's easy and I have stats which many women want for a LTR but if I was in a worse position I wouldn't bother at all.  

[ey****]

Some of the youtube stuff isn't really based on meaningful data or a fair study

but

there is a simple compare

a woman might say "ugh, the messages I got were all awful and inappropriate and so on"
a man might reply "at least you get messages"

but if, say...

a man said "all I get is fakes and scammers"

and a woman replied "at least you get messages" 

you can see why the metrics aren't really that helpful.  

[Ar****]

1 hour ago, Mathbro said:

Every analysis of online dating that has been done supports my position. Even women are astonished how difficult it is to get matches on Tinder when they make a fake male profile. You can complain about poor quality interactions which women get(sure) but that's still one level better than no interaction which is the case for the majority of men who OLD and I say this as someone who is reasonably successful at OLDing(though not here). Good luck if you're a fat lower-class man who's 5'6. 

You have made yourself familiar with every analysis of online dating ever made/performed? Every single one? I'm not buying that, not least of all when I've seen direct evidence to the contrary. And I'm not sure that pointing out the difficulty anybody has in getting dates using fake profiles on a site like Tinder was the most convincing way to persuade people that men don't have things easier than women 😆🤦‍♂️

Again, another topic which I'm sure has only been discussed and dissected here as recently as this week, women generally aren't as fickle as men about build. They're (understandably) more concerned with matters of actual import. And lower class? Dismissing that is to dismiss a huge percentage of your potentials before you even begin (for example, 63% in the UK); unless they're a gold-digger or such nobody is going to be that daft. I see overweight, short, lower-class men who do damned well for themselves with the ladies (and the men, for that matter). Do you know how the ones who manage that do it? It's through being decent, reliable, human beings who have proven they have something to offer but who don't couple it to an entitlement complex. It's got naff all to do with how they look, the same as how so many tall/buff/flash guys aren't successful because their ego makes them plain horrible to be around.

The biggest flaw in your logic is in the claim that the poor interactions women receive (and it is good to see you acknowledge that they do actually exist) are still "one level" better than the no interactions most men get. Do you even hear yourself? A huge portion of these "poor interactions" are ***, plain and simple. *** is never better than no interaction. But more interestingly, if women have better experiences on these sites than men do, they have to be having these positive experiences with somebody else i.e. men, for the most part. There is a balance, even where sites have fewer women than men. I'm sure we can agree that an occasional ball of tumbleweed blowing through our inboxes is far preferable to the vile content other "men" often send to women.

[Ar****]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

Seeing all the comments over the past week from men who feel that they have a rough deal, I think i'll have a go at thinking about things from a guys perspective and maybe come up with solutions. Popcorn should be on everyones shopping list 😂

Oh sweet Jesus... look, I've already got popcorn in (and ice cream, obviously), but can you at least wait until Tuesday please? I've got a week free starting then.

[ey****]

I guess also
There is a lot I know can be disheartening and frustrating 

Obviously folk have different objectives - some might be fixed ("I want to be in a LTR relationship which is a FLR" or "...with a sub" or "with an element of kink" or so on) some might be a bit more fluid ("I want to meet people for hook up play/sex/whatever")

I do actually think a big lie somewhere is "let's go for a coffee and see where it goes" because there's nearly always an objective of where they're hoping it goes.

But let's digest.

Person A might be disheartened because they're not getting matches or conversations going.  So they're not happy. Person B is complaining they have conversations that go nowhere. The first person thinks "Sigh, at least they're getting conversations"

But then.

Lo.

The next day someone they had previously reached out to pings in their inbox and is like "Hey, sorry it took so long for me to reply I only just saw this" or "I've been so busy" or "I got your message the same day I agreed to meet someone else so didn't want to lead you on, well, that went nowhere - do you still wanna chat?"

Ok, great!

Then over the next couple of weeks there are other people that ping up - and - some of the conversations die, but feeling more confident, Person A reaches out to a couple more people and gets replies!  This is great.  But, he's not actually getting meets.  Person C is complaining about bad dates and then person A is a bit "at least he is getting meets" 

And, you know where I'm going with this...

Boom, someone Person A had messaged is like "we've talked for a bit - shall we meet" and they do!  

And it doesn't really work out, but, hey OK - at least it's a meet - and Person A starts to find more people are happy to meet but he's also finding - fuck - this is costing him a fortune in dates (even with the other person often paying half).  But we will say a lot of these are not actually one shot and fizzle - some become second and third dates - but while there's sometimes play, nothing is really lasting.  Person D on the other hand is complaining about having relationships which burn out short term as the person isn't committing fully to the D/s lifestyle and again - Person A is 'at least they're getting relationships out of this'

and this is such a cycle - because although Person A felt they would be happy back at the beginning if they at least had a conversation going - that they're actually going out on dates but finding it's going nowhere is still potentially leaving them unhappy.

And this is a big problem.

This doesn't just apply to dating but to a lot of other things in life 

[ey****]

7 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

You have made yourself familiar with every analysis of online dating ever made/performed?

I think I mentioned above the one a lady on Fetlife did where she set up a male profile how she would like men to interact with others and got good results

there were reasons why this couldn't be quantified as a study (for the same reasons most of these ancedental youtube videos can't be - their purpose is merely to keep you watching so they get paid) 

but it's ironic also because it's cherry picking data to fit a narrative which in itself makes it for a void study 

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

Seeing all the comments over the past week from men who feel that they have a rough deal, I think i'll have a go at thinking about things from a guys perspective and maybe come up with solutions. Popcorn should be on everyones shopping list 😂

😱😲🙈 Are you auditioning for ITV's Loose Women? I mean this is just a jokey tongue in cheek post surely?

While I'm an advocate of free speech, If your serious I wont be participating or giving it any traction. Can consider a blind eye turned in advance.

[Ar****]

4 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

😱😲🙈 Are you auditioning for ITV's Loose Women? I mean this is just a jokey tongue in cheek post surely?

Why would there be an issue if she was?

[Deleted Member]

33 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

You have made yourself familiar with every analysis of online dating ever made/performed? Every single one? I'm not buying that, not least of all when I've seen direct evidence to the contrary. And I'm not sure that pointing out the difficulty anybody has in getting dates using fake profiles on a site like Tinder was the most convincing way to persuade people that men don't have things easier than women 😆🤦‍♂️

Again, another topic which I'm sure has only been discussed and dissected here as recently as this week, women generally aren't as fickle as men about build. They're (understandably) more concerned with matters of actual import. And lower class? Dismissing that is to dismiss a huge percentage of your potentials before you even begin (for example, 63% in the UK); unless they're a gold-digger or such nobody is going to be that daft. I see overweight, short, lower-class men who do damned well for themselves with the ladies (and the men, for that matter). Do you know how the ones who manage that do it? It's through being decent, reliable, human beings who have proven they have something to offer but who don't couple it to an entitlement complex. It's got naff all to do with how they look, the same as how so many tall/buff/flash guys aren't successful because their ego makes them plain horrible to be around.

The biggest flaw in your logic is in the claim that the poor interactions women receive (and it is good to see you acknowledge that they do actually exist) are still "one level" better than the no interactions most men get. Do you even hear yourself? A huge portion of these "poor interactions" are ***, plain and simple. *** is never better than no interaction. But more interestingly, if women have better experiences on these sites than men do, they have to be having these positive experiences with somebody else i.e. men, for the most part. There is a balance, even where sites have fewer women than men. I'm sure we can agree that an occasional ball of tumbleweed blowing through our inboxes is far preferable to the vile content other "men" often send to women.

You're confusing in person with online. Online dating acts as a great filter for multiple reasons - I don't dispute men who aren't attractive can be successful in person(though it's harder), I dispute the idea that they are successful over Tinder. Not being physically attractive or having socially desirable traits/status on Tinder is pretty much a death sentence. On other mediums this matters still but perhaps it shifts to more LTR focused qualities(ex, demonstrated stability matters more) but a high bar is still set for men due the quantity of options women have(most aren't real options but the perception is there).  

Along those lines I feel a significant percentage of complaints from women on here amount to "I get the same repetitive boring message and it doesn't turn me on" but this complaint partially exists because of the quantity of messages they receive. If they received at most one message a week they would probably value "hey" a lot more right? Paradox of choice. I will say though having more interactions(though not too many) creates opportunity because it's possible you end up liking the person in a way you didn't prior to the interaction. In this way I would always prefer more messages to fewer even if some of them were shitty(and such interactions can be easily ended).  

 

[Straight_Switch]

More satire I presume?

It's a fact most women want the top 10% of men, also known as 'Chad'.

Because Chad is a bad boy, he has perfect abs, *** and great looks.

Chad has his pick so never settles down, why would he? Most girls will sleep with him no matter how badly he treats them why? Because he gives them butterflies, and women are addicted to the butterflies.

So if you're happy to share your toys continue to date and choose Chad it is your choice after all.

Just don't keep crying there are no good men out there, you keep choosing Chad.

And the male simps who enable that behaviour when you girls cry about it on social media "oh queen I would never treat you like that you're the best queen, stunning and brave*.

So you get validated when Chad doesn't want you then get right back to chasing Chad soon as you have finished using these poor guys so desperate for female attention they will tell you anything you want to hear in the hopes you will smile at them, because they aren't a Chad.

It's so transparent these days it's really boring seeing the same old stuff on these boards and social media in general.

But copper this surly was a bit of fun right to see what stirred 9n the pot? :-)

Peace love n hugs n shit.

[CopperKnob]

5 hours ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said:

😱😲🙈 Are you auditioning for ITV's Loose Women? I mean this is just a jokey tongue in cheek post surely?

While I'm an advocate of free speech, If your serious I wont be participating or giving it any traction. Can consider a blind eye turned in advance.

See, there was a thread recently where the question was raised "what do women want?" And a bunch of men responded. And when women said "no, thats not what we want, we're all individuals and we all want different things". A whole bunch of men shouted the women down saying "oh, you silly women, you don't know what you want. We know better than you because we're men"
Whats good for the gander is good for the goose surely?